ArtRank: Market Influence Through Symbolic Isolation

ArtRank: Market Influence Through Symbolic Isolation

Despite much scorn and neglect from artists, critics, and audiences alike, the art market organ is more visible and valuable than ever, thanks in part to online art market advisory tools such as ArtRank.com, which launched in February 2014. In the aftermath of the 2009 recession, Carlos A. Rivera took advantage of the fragile economic climate by investing in art, an asset that has been historically hedged against inflation. Though art offered economic protections not afforded to other commodities, Rivera understood that the art market was still plagued by an inherently opaque modus operandi. Claiming to demystify and restore confidence, security, and vitality to the art market, an economic organism that has traditionally thrived on secrecy or the illusion of an art works inherent pricelessness, Rivera conceived ofArtRank.com, an art market recommendation system open to anyone with an internet connection[1]. While ranking systems have existed in the art world since the 1970s German publication Kunstkompass, which boasted a ‘Glory Formula’ that judged artworks based on institutional recognition, ArtRank illustrates the art market’s shift towards an increasingly predictive economy for even those without institutional or secondary market traction. [2]

ArtRank is an unapologetic display of the art world’s unartistic, money-minded underbelly, claiming to “assess the intrinsic value of an artwork, not its aesthetic or emotional value.” Branding itself as the financial analysts and advisors of the contemporary art market, ArtRank publishes a quarterly art market index, based on a proprietary algorithm with “qualitatively weighted metrics” that ranks 60 artists along six different categories of investment options, including Buy Now < $10,000, Buy Now < $30,000, Buy Now < $100,000, Early Blue Chip, Sell Now/Peaking, and Liquidate. These categories, entitled with calls to action, encourage collectors to continuously exchange artworks for monetary benefit rather than for develop personal collections or symbolic relationships with pieces.However, upon closer look, the economic potential of ArtRank roots not in its “comprehensive and predictive” analytic and algorithmic methods but rather in the elimination of risk through its reflection and encouragement of homogeneous patterns of art consumption and production, and predetermined market trajectories. ArtRank generates its own self-perpetuating art micro-market that relies precisely on its isolation from symbolic and artistic value for its own stability, both stunting the evolution of artists and investors on the platform, and allowing the art world’s cultural sphere to exercise distance from the market.

1) ArtRank’s Business Model: Selling “Priviledged Information” to the Privileged

ArtRank’s business model relies on more than just “machine learning algorithms” and “accuracy.” Depending on a limited, specific customer base, and a data set built from biased sources that target a specific selection of artists, ArtRank breeds a hegemonic system in which submissive investors consent and conform to ArtRank’s biased data predictions, and thus, make them a reality.

ArtRank targets their platform to a limited and demographically homogenous group in an effort to maximize the potential profits from their predictions with the least risk. While ArtRank eventually releases their quarterly rankings to the public, ArtRank’s main revenue stems from their Early Access Subscription Program, in which subscribers will receive the same tip sheet three weeks early, generally prior to major art shows and auctions. The Early Access Program hand-selects ten out of 100+ applicants. With an entrance-fee of $3,500 to join, ArtRank hand-picks the subscribers based on financial and social influence. Though the Early Access Program is both prohibitively exclusive and expensive for most people, ArtRank claims that subscription users yield over 4200% return on art investments in a matter of 16 months. This incredible return on investment speaks more to the subscribers’ own economic capital and willingness to adhere to ArtRank’s charts than ArtRank’s ability to predict the motion of the emergent art market. In a Business Insider interview, Rivera states that wealthy or powerful collectors are a “large portion of those doing early access, whose sport is finding an artist before he sells for a million dollars”.[3] The wealthiest applicants will have the funds and least risk-aversion to carry out more of ArtRank’s suggestions to “Buy”, “Sell”, or “Liquidate.” Abiding by ArtRank’s quarterly prediction, the collector will become the market-maker that transforms ArtRank’s speculation in the market reality.

Debunking ArtRank’s Data Sources

While ArtRank claims to have designed “comprehensive and predictive” methods and have databases with over “three million historic data points,” their biased data sources enable the platform to tailor the artists represented. Although ArtRank alleges to evaluate artists based on several exogenous criteria points, including the “use both of empirical data of sales, a calculation of an artist’s visibility using social media platforms, and auction data,” truly unbiased, empirical data is more difficult to collect for early emergent artists who have little prior secondary market or institutional foothold. ArtRank also reveals alliances with self-selected, endogenous knowledge, including “a confidential network of dealers, advisers, collectors, and journalists.” As written in their FAQ, insiders who provide information “are reciprocally recompensed with alerts and reports ahead of our public announcements.”[4] Relying on an elusive and yet specific network of insiders, ArtRank produces knowledge by and for the same people who consume it. When asked about ArtRank’s data collection, Jeni Fulton, PH.D candidate and expert on the field of art market valuation, opines “My suspicion is there is little data behind it. In my estimation, it is based on gossip.”[5]

ArtRank and its internal organization of insiders assign attention to a limited scope of artists. By analyzing the ArtRank indexes released over the last 5 quarters, I found that out of the 116 artists represented on ArtRank, 77 appeared on at least two quarterly charts, and only 33 uniquely appeared on one chart. The reappearance of artists in multiple quarterly rankings illustrates the limited set of artists that ArtRank and its insiders account for and even attempt to quantify. Though they state otherwise, it is quite likely that ArtRank’s data sets do not extend beyond the 60 artists that they feature in their charts each month. In addition, of the artists represented on ArtRank, the vast majority who are under 35, 85% are male, reflecting the art market’s historically asymmetrical gender preference.[6]

2) Biased Data Collection Promotes Artistic and Artist Uniformity

ArtRank and its internal organization of insiders assign attention to a limited scope of artists. By analyzing the ArtRank indexes released over the last 5 quarters, I found that out of the 116 artists represented on ArtRank, 77 appeared on at least two quarterly charts, and only 33 uniquely appeared on one chart. The reappearance of artists in multiple quarterly rankings illustrates the limited set of artists that ArtRank and its insiders account for and even attempt to quantify. Though they state otherwise, it is quite likely that ArtRank’s data sets do not extend beyond the 60 artists that they feature in their charts each month. In addition, of the artists represented on ArtRank, the vast majority who are under 35, 85% are male, reflecting the art market’s historically asymmetrical gender preference.[7]

Attempting to normalize the highly variably and mysterious art market, ArtRank features artists who employ a very narrow aesthetic range that is reminiscent to works previously successful in the art market. ArtRank also uses its rankings as seeds to reinforce consistent, predetermined career patterns for artists on the site, as this standardized artist trajectory then becomes the prediction.

ArtRank’s ranking system not only selects from a very small and specific demographic of artists, but also promotes and produces an aesthetic homogeneity, conforming to market-ready mediums and artistic tropes that signal symbolic significance rather than actually possess such. Reflecting the art market’s historical attachment to two-dimensional mediums, the vast majority of artists on ArtRank are painters, as the medium is most suited for a collector’s private home and is also the most expensive in the 2D family. Zombie Formalism is a new painting phenomenon, which embodies both ArtRank’s neutralization of artistic expression and also the encouragement of market-driven art production. Jerry Saltz sums up Zombie Formalist paintings as “brand-name, reductionist canvases, all more or less handsomely harmless, supposedly meta-critical, and just ‘new’ or ‘dangerous’ looking enough not to violate anyone’s sense of what ‘new’ or ‘dangerous’ really is.” [8] Seemingly harkening back to everything and nothing at all, Zombie Formalist painters can remain in the inoffensive safety zone between originality and the tried-and-true, capitalizing on the market success that has iteratively been proven for this style of art. ArtRank’s charts certainly both reflect and encourage Zombie Formalism, generic artwork produced with the market in mind. Of the 35 Zombie Formalist painters showcased in Jerry Saltz’s Vulture article “Zombies on the Walls: Why does So Much New Abstraction Look the Same,” 18, over half, were featured in ArtRank’s rankings at some point in the last 5 quarters. As young emergent artists lack institutional support or auction result, ArtRank looks towards the generic, inoffensive, and infinitely reproducible Zombie Formalism style as a potential indicator of an artist’s market success.

Though ArtRank does grant market attention to young artists who may not have much institutional or secondary market traction, this open door for new artists closes abruptly, as the platform reroutes artists’ careers along a predetermined short term fast-track, capitalizing on the current trend of art flipping. Flipping is the process by which young artists’ work is bought in mass quantities, then flipped onto lesser collectors before their markets collapse, and is a response to the contemporary art’s fragile market viability for younger artists with little institutional representation. Flipping also creates a predefined trajectory for the flipped artists and also heightens investor security. Stefan Simchowitz, cultural entrepreneur and art flipper extraordinaire, understands that art flipping quenches art investors desire for greater financial security, stating, “to feel good about investing in cultural production is a very difficult thing to do because art, at the end of the day, has no value. So, the more confidence you can bring to the system, the better it is for the system.”[9] An investment made by a prominent art collector in an emergent artist has a similar effect to, and is often the basis for, an artist’s appearance in ArtRank, as both establish trust, reputation, and attention in a certain area of the art market, which is then likely to generate investment returns. By analyzing ArtRank’s archive of quarterly rankings, one can observe the effect art flipping has on an artist’s lifespan on ArtRank and in general. Edward Winkleman, a blogger, conducted personal research that compared the artists mentioned in two seminal 2014 articles about art flipping (including “Lund Painting Sold for 1,500% Gain as Art Flippers Return” and “Art Flippers Chase Fresh Stars as Murillo’s Doodles Soar ) to their trajectories and patterns on ArtRank. Of the 14 “hot” artists Bloomberg arts journalist Katya Kazakina cited in her article by name, 12 (or 86%) have appeared in the ArtRank lists. Studying these 12 artists, over the five quarterly rankings we can observe trends. Winkleman considers an artist’s trajectory “flat” if they remained in the same category each time they appeared, “up” if they moved from one “Buy” to a higher “Buy” price bracket or if they moved from “Sell” or “Liquidate” back into “Buy” or “Early Blue Chip,” and “down” represents artist’s who move from “Buy” or “Early Blue Chip to “Sell” or “Liquidate.” Based on the five quarterly charts that have been published so far, we see that three of these “hot flipped” artists have trended “up,” four were “flat,” and five have trended down. However, of the four “flat” artists, all four were in the “Sell” or “Liquidate” category initially. In this light, only 3 out of 12 (or 25%) artists were recommended as a worthy buy at the end of these five quarters (Winkleman). The flipping practices evident on ArtRank illustrate how vulnerable artist’s careers are in the hands of art world outsiders, who only focus on the immediate value of a piece rather than how it the piece many fit in with art historical legacies. As observed, after ArtRank captures a “hot” artist on the rankings, it may be impossible for the artist to escape the predetermined, premature downward trajectory. Unlike in a gallery-based trajectory where dealers slowly develop the market so that an artist’s prices may never drop, all artists’ entry onto ArtRank is an inauspicious foreshadowing of their likely predetermined downfall. The moment when ArtRank forecasts an artists future, it requires fulfillment from the people who abide by it already.

3) Artrank’s Alienation from Symbolic Value and the Art World at Large

Not featuring any information or images about artists or their artworks, ArtRank isolates collectors from the artworks that they may invest in. ArtRank reduces an artwork to its raw status as a commodity, or its exchange value, severing the piece from symbolic or cultural associations in that moment. Why might ArtRank’s business benefit as artworks split with their symbolic half? Firstly, the subjective quality of an artwork interferes with the ability to trust the objectivity behind its quantitative valuation. If artistic merits were criteria for composing the ArtRank index, the list would be entirely illegitimate, especially as its creators do not have the symbolic capital to have such conviction over their artistic opinions. Secondly, ArtRank advocates for an artist in the short-term, testifying to their immediate value in order to spur market activity. Symbolic value, on the other hand, is a long-term quality that far outlasts market variability or trends. An artwork’s symbolic value, or the cultural or personal significance, distracts from its immediate market potential.

ArtRank envisions both an expanding art market and population of art collectors, in which the masses own art as if it were a common household commodity. ArtRank shares Artsy co-founder Carter Cleveland’s future vision of art collecting as “becoming the normal behavior for households with disposable income, just like buying luxury fashion and jewelry.”[10]

Despite decrying the “pretense around art collecting,” and democratically appealing to all to invest in the art market, ArtRank’s relentless quantitative emphasis deprives these collectors of qualitative, symbolic experience with art. Without the symbolic or cultural equipment needed to independently assess works, investors only have ArtRank’s predictions to rely on, and ArtRank’s remote art market island grows and wields authority over its investor population. grows bigger. ArtRank indoctrinates collectors into a symbolically stagnant art market terrain, isolated from the typical optical and sensory experience of art. ArtRank approaches an artwork with its economic valuation preceding its cultural meaning. ArtRank’s attempt to be a democratic platform for all art collectors, actually might strip new collectors from the symbolic meaning and personal value of artworks entirely. ArtRank is perhaps not the ideal space to introduce the masses to art. As ArtRank revolves around exogenous values, or criteria external to the art world, such as financial performance, and neglects artistic value, ArtRank creates inequality in the art world, isolating newcomers from the actual content of artworks. ArtRank envisions an expanding art market, where art enters the same arena as the common household commodity, sharing Artsy co-founder Carter Cleveland’s future vision of art collecting “becoming the normal behavior for households with disposable income, just like buying luxury fashion and jewelry” (Cleveland). Despite decrying the “pretense around art collecting,” and democratically appealing to all to invest in the art market, ArtRank’s relentless quantitative emphasis differently influences a collectors qualitative, symbolic experience with the work and, in turn, stunts the growth of true democratic participation in art spaces. As ArtRank approaches an artwork with its economic valuation preceding its cultural meaning, investors are more or less able to extract symbolic meaning from the artwork as distinct from its market value. Depending on the investors’ prior art and cultural knowledge, one is better or worse able to compartmentalize the market valuation of a piece from its cultural valuation. Those with just a budding interest in art will then equate an artwork’s symbolic value with its financial value. ArtRank’s attempt to be a democratic platform for all art collectors, actually might strip new collector’s from the symbolic meaning and personal value of an artwork entirely. ArtRank is perhaps not the ideal space to introduce the masses to art. As ArtRank revolves around exogenous values, or criteria external to the art world, such as financial performance, and neglects artistic value, ArtRank creates inequality in the art world, isolating newcomers from the actual content of artworks.

As ArtRank attempts to transfer an aesthetic standard such as Zombie Formalism or two-dimensionality into market success, artists must often join ArtRank’s aesthetic regime to even be considered for the platform or eligible for further market exposure. In pursuit of predictable profit, ArtRank features an aesthetically homogeneous line-up of artists. Devoid of much creative, symbolic, or artistic innovation, these works have been described as “easy on the eyes and even easier on the mind.”[11] For some artists, a listing on ArtRank indicates a succumbing to market pressures and the platform’s demand for aesthetic assimilation. For instance, post-Internet artists Petra Cortright initially created primarily web-based work that was too ephemeral to be popular with collectors. However, after Stefan Simchowitz swooped up her work, abruptly exposing her to intense market pressures, her artistic practice quickly transitioned from web-work to 2-D digital paintings[12]. Jeni Fulton muses on the effects of regulating artistic production, stating “No matter which system is used in an attempt to understand the mechanics of quality in the art world, by introducing a system which normalizes very disparate behaviors and practices into a codified set of big data will create an apparatus which influences the artworks which are produced. Art, however, is a reflection of the current social mood (including the market), and any normalizing system introduces a form of states where innovation is punished.”[13]

As art production assimilates to standard styles demanded on ArtRank, the art world grows more segmented and ArtRank becomes more insular. Zombie Formalism, a genre identifiable by its derivative abstract style and yet a marked favorite of emergent art collectors, embodies ArtRank’s increasing autonomy from the art world at large. Jerry Saltz argues that Zombie Formalist works are created for digital distribution and exchange, stating “It looks pretty much the same in person as it does on iPhone, iPad, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, and Instagram… You see and get it fast, and then it doesn’t change. There are no complex structural presences to assimilate, few surprises, and no unique visual iconographies or incongruities to come to terms with. It’s frictionless, made for trade. Art as bitcoin.”[14] While ArtRank often than strips artists from their strong symbolic or artistic origins and transfers them into their isolated art market, artworks are now being created with an aesthetic style, distribution medium and market approach akin to that of ArtRank. Zombie Formalism adopts important aspects of ArtRank, featuring a generic abstract aesthetic that conveys little substantial message on a format for digital viewing and distribution. The production of market-influenced work also helps to perpetuate ArtRank’s self-sufficient art market economy.

ArtRank also undermines the importance symbolic value with viral value, or the value of widespread popularity, instant recognition, and high visibility.[15] While symbolic value has traditionally been conferred by elite institutions and prominent art world gatekeepers, an artist’s or artwork’s viral value has a much more immediate onset and short-term duration. By distancing from the opticality of an artwork, as ArtRank does, artists are propelled by a much more ambiguous set of criteria propelled by reputation, meaning in this case, the hype that is generated through the network of investors. ArtRank recently introduced a new commercial aspect of their platform that depends on and enhances the viral value. Through the ArtRank™

#Buytoday auction and consignment system, artworks by ArtRank-listed artists are auctioned off three times a week, which investors can immediately purchase with credit card or Bitcoin. In addition, artworks are also consigned from collectors, which generates a further self-sufficient network of collectors on the platform who make profit from both buying and selling a homogeneous array of works. As the hashtag in its name alludes to, the success of the platform relies on the virality of works dispersed among people who trust the platform. They claim that the average artwork on #Buytoday is sold in less than 30.25 minutes. Because there is a more defined road map to achieve virality than cultural significance, such as social networks and social media branding, ArtRank relies more on the immediate market effects of viral value.

4) Distance from the Market and the Fate of Symbolic Value

While ArtRank explicitly attends to and encourages “art for the markets sake,” “art for arts sake,” or art produced with strong artistic intentions and without explicit market intentions, may remain unaffected by the platform’s staunch market-mindedness. As discussed previously, the homogeneous roster of artists on ArtRank does not encompass some of the most artistically innovative work happening in the contemporary art world today, including performance and installation works. The narrow range of works presented is a fact that can be extrapolated to the art market at large, as Christopher Knight, art critic at the LA Times, says, “The problem is that the market represents a very narrow slice of a vast art-pie. Art commerce gets out-sized press because the public, although generally unfamiliar with and incurious about art, is familiar with and curious about money. In modern capitalism, art and popular culture intersect in the market.”[16] There is little struggle between the symbolic and market value of artworks, when the market does not consider the works that possess significant cultural value and instead focuses on the works that are created to be sold.

Operating in the inherently subjective and unstable contemporary art market, ArtRank attempts to impose regulation on the market to reduce investment risk. Through the homogenization of its customer base and artist demographic, the standardization of artist and artwork trajectories, and the separation from symbolic value, ArtRank has birthed its own cyclical, self-fulfilling and isolated segment of the art world. While many gallerists, artists, and traditional collectors feel threatened by ArtRank’s blatant commodification of art, this moral panic may be unjustified considering ArtRank’s distant from the symbolic discourse in the art world. ArtRank may actually serve to divide the art world along lines of symbolic and market significance. As market-oriented artworks and artists stream directly in the ArtRank system, perhaps entirely art-centric spaces, emancipated and separated from the ArtRank market, will have more opportunity to develop.

Appendix

The volatility of the Contemporary sector is illustrated by the graph above. The diagram compares the performance of the All Art 100 Index (an index developed by Art Market research) of the top 100 artists of all sectors against the top 100 artists of the Contemporary art index from January 1985 to February 2009.

The ArtRank charts over the last five quarters

Q1, 2014

BUY NOW < $10,000

BUY NOW < $30,000

BUY NOW < $100,000

SELL NOW / PEAKING

LIQUIDATE

BUY NOW < $100,000

1. Zak Prekop

1. Mark Flood

1. Sam Moyer

1. Tauba Auerbach

1. Banksy

1. Sam Moyer

2. Sean Kennedy

2. Ethan Cook

2. Jean-Baptiste Bernadet

2. Lucien Smith

2. Oscar Murillo

2. Jean-Baptiste Bernadet

3. Isaac Brest

3. Christian Rosa

3. Michael Manning

3. Parker Ito

3. Vic Muniz

3. Michael Manning

4. Grear Patterson

4. Alex Israel

4. Ayan Farah

4. Kaws

4. Jacob Kassay

4. Ayan Farah

5. Gabriele De Santis

5. Israel Lund

5. Artie Vierkant

5. Eddie Peake

5. Nina Beier

5. Artie Vierkant

6. Landon Metz

6. Sam Falls

6. Sebastian Black

6. Dan Colen

6. Adam McEwen

6. Sebastian Black

7. Michael Staniak

7. Korakrit Arunanondchai

7. Ryan Estep

7. David Ostrowski

7. Nate Lowman

7. Ryan Estep

8. Kasper Sonne

8. Wyatt Kahn

8. Leo Gabin

8. Walead Beshty

8. Josh Smith

8. Leo Gabin

9. Justin Adian

9. Nick Darmstaedter

9. Chris Succo

9. Jeff Elrod

9. Sterling Ruby

9. Chris Succo

10. J. Patrick Walsh

10. Alex Hubbard

10. Kyle Thurman

10. Dan Rees

10. Anselm Reyle

10. Kyle Thurman

Q2, 2014

BUY NOW < $10,000

BUY NOW < $30,000

BUY NOW < $100,000

EARLY BLUE CHIP

SELL NOW / PEAKING

LIQUIDATE

1. Leif Ritchey

1. Ryan Estep

1. Korakrit Arunanondchai

1. David Ostrowski

1. Mark Flood

1. Oscar Murillo

2. J. Patrick Walsh

2. Grear Patterson

2. Christian Rosa

2. Wyatt Kahn

2. Eddie Peake

2. Jacob Kassay

3. Kasper Sonne

3. Michael Manning

3. Jonas Wood

3. Tauba Auerbach

3. Dan Colen

3. Lucien Smith

4. Sayre Gomez

4. Landon Metz

4. Harold Ancart

4. Joe Bradley

4. Walead Beshty

4. Sterling Ruby

5. Alexander Ruthner

5. Isaac Brest

5. Sebastian Black

5. Alex Hubbard

5. Ned Vena

5. Adam McEwen

6. Matt Sheridan Smith

6. Artie Vierkant

6. Ethan Cook

6. Hugh Scott-Douglas

6. Kour Pour

6. Nina Beier

7. Justin Adian

7. Aaron G. Maikovska

7. Jean-Baptiste Bernadet

7. Danh Vo

7. Dan Rees

7. Parker Ito

8. Luke Diiorio

8. Gabriele De Santis

8. Kyle Thurman

8. Alex Israel

8. Israel Lund

8. Josh Smith

9. Joe Reihsen

9. Petra Cortright

9. Nick Darmstaedter

9. Jeff Elrod

9. Fredrik Vaerslev

9. Rashid Johnson

10. Margo Wolowiec

10. Emanuel Röhss

10. Brendan Lynch

10. AC November Hoibo

10. Nate Lowman

10. Rob Pruit

Q3, 2014

BUY NOW < $10,000

BUY NOW < $30,000

BUY NOW < $100,000

EARLY BLUE CHIP

SELL NOW / PEAKING

LIQUIDATE

1. Matt Sheridan Smith

1. Artie Vierkant

1. Sebastian Black

1. Wyatt Kahn

1. Alex Israel

1. Lucien Smith

2. Jamian Juliano-Villani

2. Margo Wolowiec

2. Will Boone

2. Danh Vō

2. David Ostrowski

2. Jacob Kassay

3. Luke Diiorio

3. Oliver Osborne

3. Grear Patterson

3. Joe Bradley

3. Jeff Elrod

3. Oscar Murillo

4. Zachary Armstrong

4. Math Bass

4. Korakrit Arunanondchai

4. Jonas Wood

4. Eddie Peake

4. Josh Smith

5. Antoine Puisais

5. Torey Thornton

5. Aaron Garber-Maikovska

5. Tauba Auerbach

5. Jean-Baptiste Bernadet

5. Dan Rees

6. Sayre Gomez

6. Gabriele De Santis

6. Petra Cortright

6. Harold Ancart

6. Alex Hubbard

6. Ned Vena

7. Max Frintrop

7. Leif Ritchey

7. Matt Connors

7. Jordan Wolfson

7. Ethan Cook

7. Parker Ito

8. Andy Boot

8. Michael Manning

8. Brent Wadden

8. Tony Lewis

8. Christian Rosa

8. Israel Lund

9. JPW3

9. Ryan Estep

9. Brendan Lynch

9. Cory Arcangel

9. Fredrik Værslev

9. Mark Flood

10. Kadar Brock

10. Travess Smalley

10. Mike Bouchet

10. Nick Darmstaedter

10. Nate Lowman

10. Hugh Scott-Douglas

Q4, 2014

BUY NOW < $10,000

BUY NOW < $30,000

BUY NOW < $100,000

EARLY BLUE CHIP

SELL NOW / PEAKING

LIQUIDATE

1. Calvin Marcus

1. Torey Thornton

1. Will Boone

1. Joe Bradley

1. Christian Rosa

1. Parker Ito

2. Zachary Armstrong

2. Justin Adian

2. Korakrit Arunanondchai

2. Seth Price

2. Alex Israel

2. Jean-Baptiste Bernadet

3. Jamian Juliano-Villani

3. Math Bass

3. Aaron Garber-Maikovska

3. Jordan Wolfson

3. Jeff Elrod

3. Israel Lund

4. Vittorio Brodmann

4. Margo Wolowiec

4. Grear Patterson

4. Tauba Auerbach

4. Fredrik Værslev

4. Mark Flood

5. Katja Novitskova

5. Avery Singer

5. Michael Williams

5. Danh Vō

5. Alex Hubbard

5. Ethan Cook

6. Dominic Samsworth

6. Sayre Gomez

6. Joyce Pensato

6. Jonas Wood

6. David Ostrowski

6. Lucien Smith

7. Luke Diiorio

7. Travess Smalley

7. Brent Wadden

7. Cory Arcangel

7. Nate Lowman

7. Eddie Peake

8. Bunny Rogers

8. Isaac Brest

8. Friedrich Kunath

8. Matt Connors

8. Adam McEwen

8. Dan Rees

9. Haley Mellin

9. Katherine Bernhardt

9. Petra Cortright

9. Tony Lewis

9. Nick Darmstaedter

9. Hugh Scott-Douglas

10. Antoine Puisais

10. Egan Frantz

10. Mike Bouchet

10. Ryan Trecartin

10. Wyatt Kahn

10. Ryan Sullivan

Q1, 2015

BUY NOW < $10,000

BUY NOW < $30,000

BUY NOW < $100,000

EARLY BLUE CHIP

SELL NOW / PEAKING

LIQUIDATE

1. Dean Levin

1. Avery Singer

1. Joyce Pensato

1. Joe Bradley

1. Michael Williams

1. Ayan Farah

2. Timur Si-Qin

2. Math Bass

2. Aaron Garber-Maikovska

2. Seth Price

2. Fredrik Værslev

2. Michael Staniak

3. Vittorio Brodmann

3. Jamian Juliano-Villani

3. Will Boone

3. Cory Arcangel

3. Chris Succo

3. Christian Rosa

4. Calvin Marcus

4. Michael Manning

4. Kaari Upson

4. Danh Vō

4. Travess Smalley

4. Israel Lund

5. Alain Biltereyst

5. Tabor Robak

5. David Ostrowski

5. Oscar Murillo

5. Nick Darmstaedter

5. Parker Ito

6. Haley Mellin

6. Sanya Kantarovsky

6. Petra Cortright

6. Sergej Jensen

6. Oliver Osborne

6. Leo Gabin

7. Antoine Puisais

7. Katherine Bernhardt

7. Torey Thornton

7. Jonas Wood

7. Matt Connors

7. Mark Flood

8. Katja Novitskova

8. Ibrahim Mahama

8. Grear Patterson

8. Korakrit Arunanondchai

8. Jeff Elrod

8. Hugh Scott-Douglas

9. Austin Lee

9. Ryan Estep

9. Eddie Martinez

9. Jordan Wolfson

9. Alex Israel

9. Alex Hubbard

10. Peppi Bottrop

10. Zachary Armstrong

10. Secundino Hernández

10. Tony Lewis

10. Nate Lowman

10. Sam Falls

Works Cited

Cleveland, Carter. “Carter Cleveland Says Art in the Future Will Be for Everyone.” WSJ. 7 July 2014. Web. 14 May 2015.